Rep. 550, holding money invested in bonds secured by real estate In another State taxable by State; People v. McCall, 43 Ill. 288, holding valid order of supervisors releasing shareholders of national bank from taxes; First, etc. Bank v. Smith, 65 Ill. 47, holding shares of national bank taxable by State where bank is located; State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 4, 2 Am. Rep. 318, holding sheriff's bond not invalidated by failure to put revenue stamp thereon; Hubbard v. Board of Supervisors, etc., 23 Iowa, 144, holding shares of national bank taxable by State; National Bank v. Fisher, 45 Kan. 729, 26 Pac. 483, holding State cannot impose tax on national bank only, but may tax shares therein; Commonwealth v. First, etc. Bank, 4 Bush, 103, 96 Am. Dec. 288, holding bank officers compellable to pay tax on shares of national bank for shareholders; Citizens' Bank v. Bonny, 32 La. Ann. 242, holding charter exemption of bank capital from taxation does not exempt shares; Smith v. First, etc. Bank, 17 Mich. 480, holding shares, but not capital, of national banks liable to State taxation; Lionberger v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 79, holding tax on shares of national bank stock must be specifically against shareholders; Carthage v. First, etc. Bank, 71 Mo. 509, 36 Am. Rep. 495, holding national bank not subject to pay State license; State v. Rogers, 79 Mo. 292, holding capital of private bank invested in United States bonds not taxable by State; Berry v. Windham, 59 N. H. 290, 47 Am. Rep. 204, holding corporation legally taxable in jurisdiction of creation and where business is transacted; Pittsburg v. First, etc. Bank, 55 Pa. St. 51, holding statute cannot authorize business tax on national banks; Waco, etc. Bank v. Rogers, 51 Tex. 608, holding national bank exempt from State taxes on shares in bank owned by shareholders; Salt Lake, etc. Bank v. Golding, 2 Utah, 11, holding franchise of bank taxable by tax on shares of stockholders in national banks; Paul v. McGraw, 3 Wash. 303, 28 Pac. 534, holding shares of stock in national bank taxable as property of shareholders; Van Slyke v. State, 23 Wis. 663, 665, holding States may tax equally capital of State and shares of national banks. See valuable note in 96 Am. Dec. 291, 293, and 69 Am. St. Rep. 43, 51. Approved in People v. Miner, 46 Ill. 375, holding State tax on shareholders of national bank not returnable because technically illegally assessed; Franklin County, etc. v. Deposit Bank, 87 Ky. 383, 9 S. W. 215, holding capital and shares of State bank stock distinct, and taxable by State.

Distinguished in Thomson v. Union, etc., R. R., 9 Wall. 590, 19 L. 798, holding railroad organized under State law, though serving government, not exempt from State taxation.

4 Wall. 463-474, 18 L. 423, THOMPSON v. BOWIE.

Evidence. All evidence must have relevancy to question in issue, and tend to prove it; hence, the general character and habits of defendant, and his particular tendency to gamble when drunk, is

not admissible in suit on note alleged to have been made on gaming consideration, p. 471.

Cited and followed in Xenia Bank v. Stewart, 114 U. S. 231, 29 L. 104, 5 S. Ct. 849, holding cashier's letter respecting transaction admissible in evidence in suit on transaction against bank; Harriman v. Pullman's, etc., Co., 85 Fed. 354, 56 U. S. App. 315, holding proof of servant's conduct only at time of injury admissible to disprove negligence; Lang v. Waters, 47 Ala. 636, holding declarations of wife not part of res gestæ inadmissible in suit against husband; Vansickle v. Shenk, 150 Ind. 417, 50 N. E. 382, holding evidence of reputation of grantor inadmissible in suit to set aside fraudulent conveyance; Atchison, etc., R. R. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 628, 5 Am. St. Rep. 793, 17 Pac. 64, holding evidence of habit of using profanity inadmissible to disprove use at particular time; Heileg v. Dumas, 65 N. C. 215, holding evidence of friendship of co-obligors inadmissible in suit against them; Devere v. State, 5 Ohio C. C., 518, holding irrelevant evidence of accused's meeting a woman for unknown purpose; Triplett v. Goff, 83 Va. 786, 3 S. E. 527, holding evidence of habit of surety inadmissible in suit on bond. See valuable note in 41 Am. Rep. 120.

Distinguished in Lane v. Missouri, etc., R. R., 132 Mo. 21, 33 S. W. 650, holding evidence of habitual intemperance admissible to raise presumption of contributory negligence.

Appeal and error.- Even though a statute makes note based on gaming consideration void, a new trial will be granted where improper evidence is admitted in support of defense, p. 472.

Cited and followed in Third National Bank v. Harrison, 3 McCrary, 323, 10 Fed. 247, 248, holding notes given in "option deals" void as being gaming contracts; Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 77, 10 Am. St. Rep. 28, 18 N. E. 689, 5 L. R. A. 435, holding note given to pay margin in speculation void as being gaming contract.

4 Wall. 475-501, 18 L. 437, MISSISSIPPI v. JOHNSON.

Mandamus.- Ministerial duty, performance of which may be required of head of department, by judicial process, is one in which nothing is left to discretion. It is simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law, p. 498.

66

Cited and followed in Enterprise, etc., Co. v. Zumstein, 64 Fed. 840, and S. C., 67 Fed. 1007, 37 U. S. App. 71, holding action of postmaster-general upon satisfactory evidence" not controllable by Circuit Court; Lane v. Anderson, 67 Fed. 566, holding commissioners appointed by president to apportion Indian lands not subject to injunction; State v. Staub, 61 Conn. 568, 23 Atl. 927, holding, where law fixes amount of claim, mandamus lies to compel comptroller to act; Dunagan v. Stadler, 101 Ga. 477, 29 S. E. 440, holding duties of ordinary, on application to exempt homestead from levy,

executive; State v. Rotwitt, 15 Mont. 37, 37 Pac. 848, holding man. damus lies to compel performance of ministerial duty by secretary of State; State v. McMillan, 52 S. C. 69, 29 S. E. 544, holding duty of commissioners to apportion debts not ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus. See valuable note in 79 Am. Dec. 473. Ap proved in Koehler v. Barin, 25 Fed. 167, holding injunction not issuable to restrain register from receiving application to enter land; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 688, in dissenting opinion, majority holding unconstitutional part of consolidation act making lot-owner personally liable for street assessment; Nagle v. Wakey, 161 Ill. 395, 43 N. E. 1082, in dissenting opinion, majority holding road commissloners not liable for damages through failure to keep roads in repair.

Injunction.- Duty of president to see that laws are faithfully executed is executive, not ministerial, and injunction will not lie to prevent president from enforcing reconstruction act, alleged to be unconstitutional, nor will bill praying an injunction for such purpose be allowed to be filed, pp. 500, 501.

Injunction. Neither legislative nor executive department of government is subject to restraint by judicial department, though their acts are subject to review by such department, p. 500.

Cited and followed in Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 353, 19 L. 65, holding njunction not issuable to restrain secretary of interior from elling entry on land; State v. Smith, Mont. 57 Pac. 450, holding mandamus does not lie to compel governor to approve coLtract for state printing.

Injunctions.- State may file original bill in United States Supreme Court against United States, but court has no jurisdiction over bill to enjo1n president in performance of official duties, and bill praying rief against execution of act of Congress by president, described as president or citizen of State, cannot be entertained, p. 501.

The following citing cases affirm and rely upon this holding: Litchfield v. The Register, Woolw. 308, 313, F. C. 8,388, holding injunction not issuable to restrain land officers from adjudicating land titles; Electoral College of South Carolina, 1 Hughes, 587, F. C. 4,336, holding Supreme Court without control by mandamus of board of State canvassers' actions; Green v. Mills, 69 Fed. 858, 863, 25 U. S. App. 383, 30 L. R. A. 94, 97, holding county supervisor of registration unrestrainable by injunction from performing prescribed duties; Taylor v. Kercheval, 82 Fed. 499, holding equity courts have no jurisdiction in executive or political matters; Kelley v. State, 25 Ark. 398, holding judicial follows decision of political department of government as to status of State; Frost v. Thomas.

Colo. 56 Pac. 900, holding courts cannot restrain governor from acting under law alleged to be unconstitutional; Sullivan v

Shanklin, 63 Cal. 251, holding mandamus will not lie to compel register to issue certificate to land; Guebelle v. Epley, 1 Colo. App. 204, 28 Pac. 91, holding injunction against election officers not issuable to prevent election; Dakota v. Cox, 6 Dak. Ter. 521, holding power of removal of public officers by governor not subject to judicial control; State v. Lord, 28 Or. 524, 526, 43 Pac. 478, 479, 31 L. R. A. 480, holding mere allegation of unconstitutionality confers no jurisdiction to enjoin officers following statutory provision; State v. Thorson, 9 S. Dak. 155, 68 N. W. 204, 33 L. R. A. 584, 585, holding injunction not issuable to restrain State secretary from acting according to unconstitutional law; Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tenn. 330, 332, 11 S. W. 268, 269, 3 L. R. A. 319, and n., holding courts unable to restrain governor in issuance of certificates of election to congressmen; Maxwell v. Burton, 2 Utah, 602, holding mandamus not issuable to compel assessor to remove names placed on voting register; Slack v. Jacob, 8 W. Va. 657, 658, 660, 661, 662, holding courts unable to restrain governor from removing papers to capital according to statute; Parker v. State, 133 Ind. 185, 32 N. E. 838, 18 L. R. A. 571, holding mandamus will not lie to compel officers to hold elec tion; Walker v. Bietry, 24 La. Ann. 352, 13 Am. Rep. 128, holding mandamus not issuable to compel governor to purchase stock as authorized by statute; Gibbs v. Green, 54 Miss. 612, holding injunction not issuable to enjoin governor from enforcing law; State v. Wilson, 49 Mo. 150, holding Supreme Court will not issue mandamus to compel Circuit Court to issue injunction; Union, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, 76 Mo. 396, holding city giving consent to use of street, estopped from denying right to use; State v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 357, 5 S. W. 30, holding secretary of State not compellable by mandamus to give certificate of incorporation; State v. Stone, 120 Mo. 434, 41 Am. St. Rep. 708, 25 S. W. 377, 23 L. R. A. 195, holding mandamus not issuable to compel governor to perform any duty pertaining to office; Morton v. Green, 2 Neb. 455, holding courts cannot interfere with discharge of duties of land office; Work v. Corrington, 34 Ohio St. 77, 32 Am. Rep. 353, holding discharge of governor's duty concerning requisitions not questionable by general or State government; State v. Pennoyer, 26 Or. 213, 37 Pac. 908, 25 L. R. A. 864, holding injunction not Issuable to prevent board of public works from acting as authorized; Patterson v. Barlow, 60 Pa. St. 75, holding city council cannot be enjoined from registering voters under statute partly unconstitutional.

Approved in United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 222, 27 L. 182, 1 S. Ct. 262, holding officers of United States holding property, subject to suit by person claiming property; Wisconsin v. Pelican, etc., Co., 127 U. S. 296, 32 L. 245, 8 S. Ct. 1377, holding Supreme Court without original jurisdiction of suit by State against corporation for license; Lynn v. Polk, 8 Lea. 285, 286, dissenting opinion, holding VOL VI-40

officers may be restrained from funding public debt under void law.

Distinguished in State v. Grant, 6 Wall. 242, holding motion for leave to file bill in equity usually heard only on part of complainant; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Dey, 35 Fed. 872, 1 L. R. A. 748, and n., holding injunction issuable to restrain railroad commissioners from enforcing rates prepared under statute; Lynn v. Polk, 8 Lea, 263, holding injunction issuable to restrain State officers from finding indebtedness under void act; Chesapeake, etc., R. R. v. Miller, 19 W. Va. 417, holding courts may restrain auditor in performance of ministerial duty; State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 501, 502, 51 N. W. 735, 15 L. R. A. 573, holding Injunction properly issuable to restrain State secretary from publishing certain election notices.

4 Wall. 502-509, 18 L. 442, SAULET v. SHEPHERD.

Appeal and error.- Where judgment of Circuit Court is in nature of a special verdict, it is conclusive as to facts, and only question for review is validity of judgment in point of law, p. 507.

Cited and followed in Richmond v. Smith, 15 Wall. 438, 21 L. 202, holding general finding by Circuit Court leaves only rulings of court reviewable; Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 249, 21 L. 833, holding general findings of fact by Circuit Court conclusive, rulings alone being reviewable; Obermier v. Core, 25 Ark. 563, holding finding of court on issue submitted conclusive as to facts.

Waters and water-courses. Where one owns estate contiguous to river, alluvion formed by river becomes property of owner of such estate, right to alluvion depending on contiguity of estate to river, regardless of original estate from which contiguous estate was taken, p. 508.

Cited and followed in County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 68, 23 L. 64, holding alluvial formations belong to person owning land to which they attach; Jefferis v. East, etc. Co., 134 U. S. 190, 33 L. 876, 10 S. Ct. 521, holding insensible additions to shore of Missouri river follow title to shore; St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Ramsey, 53 Ark. 323, 22 Am. St. Rep. 200, 13 S. W. 933, 8 L. R. A. 562, holding accretion to land on stream, navigable or unnavigable, belongs to owner of land; Freedom v. Norris, 128 Ind. 381, 27 N. E. 870, holding accretions to right of way after dedication subject to easement; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 84 Mo. 372, holding accretions belong to person holding title to land to which they attach; Camden, etc., Co. v. Lippincott, 45 N. J. L. 411, holding owner of land bounded by shore line of ocean entitled to alluvial increase. See valuable note in 33 Am. Dec. 277, 279, 16 Am. Rep. 527. Approved in Clark v. Campau, 19 Mich. 329, holding boundary of adjacent riparian owners determined by lines perpendicular to stream from shore; Branham v. Bledsoe, etc. Co., 1 Lea, 707, 27 Am. Rep. 791, holding